Slashdot Mirror
Kids 'Unaffected By Game Violence' Says Study
Via Game|Life, an article in the Syndey Morning Herald discusses a new study indicating most children are unaffected by videogame violence. Though the study did indicate that children already predisposed to violence or neurotic behavior were over-stimulated by these games, most children showed no difference in behavior as a result of game play. "The study monitored the behavior of children from 10 schools in eastern and southern metropolitan Melbourne before and after playing the violent video game Quake II for 20 minutes, Swinburne's Professor Grant Devilly said. Prof Devilly said only children predisposed to aggression and more reactive to their environments changed their behavior after playing and of those only some showed more aggression."
Stupid Parents - let TV do the work
Beat 'Em and Eat 'Em
...collective "No Shit" on this one? How many times have we seen this same claim? Enough already.
Q2 is not realistic when compared to new versions of Grand Theft Auto or anything from the current generation, or last gen for that matter...I wonder if brutal street slayings show any difference versus unrealistic circa 1997 FPS's
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
I committed most of my murders before I got into gaming.
Trolling is a art,
It's just like half of slashdot has been saying this whole time, games like GTA, violent movies like 300 and other media with similar content only increase aggression in those predisposed to it. While that is in and off itself a cause for concern, and parental monitoring, the games themselves are not the root of the problem.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
This isn't the first research done on this subject. I wonder what the score is so far? The only thing I know is that no study so far has resulting in the "video game violence does affect children/people".
No effect: a couple
Inconclusive: also a few
Has effect: 0
I wonder what they would find if they did a study to see what type of person was the most violent inside a video game? I bet it wouldn't be the people who are violent in the real world.
Thoughts?
Fuck a doodle-do. Quality work there.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
OK, so only a small minority of children are negatively affected by a 20-minute session of playing Q2. Does that negative effect wear off if they play for 2 hours? Any endocrine effects need to be examined over a longer timeline.
Isn't it possible we accurately label games so that parents of kids who fall into the risk category can make appropriate decisions more easily when buying a game? Would that hurt anyone?
Oops... flames commence in 3... 2... 1...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Is twenty minutes enough play time to really determine whether a person has been impacted by the images and actions they have seen? Would you conclude that Smoking is not addictive after one smoke?
I don't think that videogames cause violence in passive people but I doubt this study shows anything except for the bias of the researcher.
My kids isn't violent. Shuddup or I'll kill you. Siriusly. I'll kill you. An TV is good. Whats worng with you. Kids will be kids. Couple broke bones is nothing its just part of growin up. Im proud of my kids. They grow up just like me.
Only played for 20 minutes? What about the long term effects of extensive playing? Both over the long term and what about the weekend binges?
Although, this is interesting, and there is some merit to the study, it only studies one part of the issue, natural tendancies as apposed to cultural ones. As someone else said, "Quake 2 is a far cry from today's GTA games", and I echo this. For its time Quake 2 was pretty violent, but culturally, it has become pretty much fully accepted and with no particular concern. What's probably more of a problem, however, is children who are constantly being asked to push the envilope of cultural acceptability of violence. I have no problem with going against cultural norms, as a whole, but children who are expected to accept violent entertainment at the edge of the cultural norm, may act very differently than ones that are expected to accept violent entertainment which has become culturally acceptable.
The bottom line is that eventually our culture comes to terms with some form of devient behavior. It's not that we morally condone it, but we become able to rationally assess it, without it becoming a sick fascination. The concern isn't so much that the violent imagery, itself, is a problem, so much as that our cravings for greater and greater violent imagery can pose a problem. We should look at this topic rationally and without reservation, there are no "duh's" or "no shit's" here. It's a valid concern. While I admit that most people, in their habbits, are healthy in their entertainment, I've also witnessed teenagers who play games specifically for the blood... which is sad, and a bit disconcerting. Violence can be used to portray strong messages, but in of itself (just like any type of stimuli) has no merrit.
I think this study is very good because it explore the natural disposition factor to violence in entertainment, and I'm sure that this is exactly WHY they chose Quake 2 to use, instead of the latest extremely violent games. That'll probably come next.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Personally, I agree. But this discussion has left the ground of common sense long ago. It's a "thinkofthechildren" issue.
And discussions in that area are hardly if ever rooted in the vicinity of common sense and logic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Monkey do not. (yeah bad English I know but the point was made)
I don't see why people get so worked up over games. Fark.com points out something like the opposite of this article with something like "With all other problems solved xxx decides to ban [thinkofthechildren] cause of the week".
For thousands of years kids witnessed (and participated in) violence on a scale so grand that beating a whore in GTA seem quaint in comparison.
I have played games like this for years and haven't gone postal yet despite having some VERY good reasons in the last few years to be up on a building with a rifle and a scope.
I guess this is just saying what many gamers (and Dennis Miller) have known for a long time: If anything your kid sees in a game pushes him/her over the edge, you're just not doing your job as a parent.
"Chinese Amazons, power armor, laser swords.... things just meant to be." - Shampoo, A Very Scary Bet
A new study points to evidence that kids who play Monopoly more than 20 minutes a day during the "critical years" causes them to become raging Capitalists.
The study looks at more than 200 of the top entrepreneurs of the last 20 years and found that 90% of them played Monolpoly as children. The remaining 10% all turned out to be pinko communists.
In a related study, it was found that Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler all played chess as small children. Bans on chess clubs are being considered in 38 states to prevent the rise of further military dictators.
More at 11.
People who stay indoors 20 minutes are no more likely to become recluses.
People who jog 20 miles are no more likely to become marathon runners.
People who write for 20 minutes are no more likely to become stenographers.
[insert any number of similarly pointless conclusions here]
The thing that people who worry about young men and violent video games forget is that much of a nation's martial power can be destroyed from within by pussifying its young male population. America is headed for a dangerous path with the way that we are teaching boys to "talk about their feelings," punishing them like they're psychopaths for scrapping at school and things like that. These won't be young men ready for war, and guess what'll happen when the chickens come home to roost? Violent video games are, IMO, one of the few things that hasn't rendered the young male population certifiably effeminate in this country.
And yes, being effeminate is a bad thing for a man to be. It does make you less of a man, and don't give me that bullshit about being "more sensitive and loving toward your girlfriend." I have never seen an effeminate, case study of modern psychological destruction of young men like that who is quick to defend his woman from serious harassment.
'Tis better to light a candle than be eaten by a grue in the dark.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
From the other 1/3rd one occasionally tries to blame some malfeasance on violent video games. This far that has not got a single one of them excused from having to take responsibility for their actions. That they still try is simply further proof that they're retarded. My regime would actually have no qualms about executing such people. We'd just tell them they were going on a fun ride.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...but I post it anytime there is something about violence and videogames on teh /.
----
I decided to finally write this down in response to some people asking me why I enjoy immeasurably violent video games and movies. This explanation is written using the game "Manhunt" as it's primary example, mainly because of it's subject matter (which can best be described as a "snuff video game"). PLEASE read it in it's entirety before responding, it's easy to think i'm making an uninformed point without reading the whole thing; I explain EVERY viewpoint I express.
Think about this, folks.
This "game" is not about sneakin' around, trying to see what the biggest mess you can make is. It's about much more than that. This game is in direct relation to the JTHM (Johnny the Homicidal Maniac by Jhonen Vasquez, for the uninitiated...) in all of us, the little black beast that we keep to ourselves.
Ever say "I wish he were dead", or "he makes me so angry I want to kill him"? Of course you have. Everyone has. This game is the digital manifestation of those thoughts. It's not about suffocating some guy, or creating the pink mist... This game does one thing and one thing only: it asks you a question. A very simple question to state, and frankly a very simple question to answer:
Is your black beast fictional or real?
Do you have a little playground for the demon inside of you, someplace it can go and harmlessly let out it's frustrations and rage? Or are you so jaded and blind that you cannot discern the difference between reality and fantasy?
Frankly, if you enjoy this game (along with ANY violent video game or movie, regardless of it's subject or presentation) you are not sick. You are normal. You are provided an outlet for the most primal emotions that you, as a human, have. Your most carnal instincts. If you don't like this game because the graphics suck, or the control is wonky, fine. BUT. If you despise this game because you say it's "too violent" and "unneccessary", and "too realistic", and whatever else, guess what: YOU are the sick one. That's not to say that you can't see it as being gross, or that you don't like it because you supposidly don't like violence (then why do you slow down to look at car accidents, hmm?) What it means is that if you say that violent things such as this push sane and "normal" people into being murderers in real life...well, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
The first step anyone takes to becomming a murderer in real life is not being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. Manhunt is fantasy. Does that mean something similar has not happend/could not happen? No. But your experience and memories of it happening are. It's a video game. It is designed to be a playground for your little black beast.
If you take it as being anything more serious than that...well, turn yourself in now.
You have to allow the little monster to come out every now and then and release it's frustrations. If you don't, you risk becomming a quivering mass of nervous and dangerous flesh. What better place to do this than in a simulated environment with simulated violence where the only things harmed are your eyes for staring at the screen?
Living With a Nerd
If you feed the little monster, the little monster grows.
My own 'little monster' gets smaller all the time, because I don't want any monster inside me at all. That's the description of the life mission I follow. --To hunt down all darkness and annihilate it within the self. If I can walk into a room and interact with anybody, shine brightly, comfortably and with grace so that every person I touch also finds a way to glow, then I am approaching the best version of myself. If I have a little monster whispering anger to me, then this mission in my life is hampered. The more time and energy I feed to the little monster, the more powerful and comfortable it becomes in its position in my psyche.
Put another way. . . The brain trains itself to fire synapses efficiently. If you spend a lot of time accessing certain types of thought and behavior, the brain re-wires itself to accommodate the firing of those synapses, which in turn makes it easier and faster for the brain to access such thoughts and behaviors. It makes such patterns easy and comfortable. If, however, you retrain your brain in different directions, then the brain rewires itself accordingly. The structure of the brain is always in motion; this is how we grow and learn.
In a very real sense, your focus determines your reality.
As well. . , I also subscribe to the belief that what you focus on becomes real in a far more literal sense. If you focus on negative energies, on mass destruction and painless murders, then these forces will find their way into your life in some manner. How many troops in Iraq were weaned on Quake?
This is not about judgment or guilt. About calling some people, "Sick". It's about what sort of reality you want to live in, what sort of energies you want to attract. I am now able to spend most of my life quite happily. I face my challenges largely without anger, without secretly wanting to harm anybody. This is a fairly significant change from only a few years ago. I find the people around me nowadays are very positive and compassionate. Is this a direct result of my stopping watching TV and playing video games? Perhaps. In any case, I certainly believe that it is all inter-related.
I remember when I used to have a much bigger little monster than I do today.
Just some thoughts.
-FL
of course violent video games have an effect on kids, thats why they are violent! duh..
Sure kids who play 20 minutes of Quake 2 or even a lot of it are not going to become violent psychopaths, but it is the culture of glorifying violence or violent force (against say 'foreign' enemies) in general which has an effect on how children grow up relating to violence in the real world through the media. When violence is continuously portrayed or glorified through entertainment, then (i) the acceptance of violence (and the oversimplification of the reasons for it!)as means to an end (say in public policy, or the glorification of real violence) becomes easier to accept, (ii)the perception of real violence in the media is deadened somewhat, even though it is realized as 'real' and perhaps shocking, since violence is to be expected in the cultural milieu (life imitating art and vice versa).
Violent video games are great fun, shouldnt be banned, and nearly all kids can distinguish it as just entertainment and will be fine, yet its the contribution to an overall glorified cultural portrayal of violence as normal (and its oversimplification) which IMO is an interesting issue.
I didn't RTFA, but I'm forced to call BS simply because of one reason, not having millions of game-playing kids commiting murders or becoming noticeably more aggressive doesn't mean that they're completely unaffected, they could be desensitized and still be sane enough not to go around hitting people.
IMHO the problem with violence in the media isn't that it makes people more aggressive, it's that it makes sheeple not care when it's really going on in real life.
Because psychology interests me. And so do games to some degree. --I'm looking forward to knowing how the story-line for the Command & Conquer series unfolds, for instance.
Also, your logic is faulty, to some extent. While I can understand your viewpoint, there is also the question of why you wanted to play video games in the first place, and what prompted you to quit. If you experienced a life-changing decision that removed your desire to play video games (assuming you were actually a gamer, and not just someone who played a video game every now and then), isn't it more likely that this life-altering moment has more to do with your peace of mind than what entertainment you take part in?
Hm. Well, you probably have a point there.
The reason I wanted to play video games in the first place was the "Wow" factor. I grew up as home computers also grew up. I was around 10 years old when the Apple II first came out. I wanted to experience everything which had to do with computers. It wasn't until much later that the social patterns began to emerge. We've come a long way since Pac Man! --I also stopped wanting to play video games when I realized that the games available in the game store ceased to interest me. If it didn't have a compelling story, then I didn't care. The more violent and 'mean' the games became, the more they repelled me. If they didn't repel me, then I would have had to embrace the head-space of such games to a degree. And I definitely had the choice. I chose to embrace more positive energies. I decided that I didn't want to be the kind of person who got excited about getting a, "Head Shot," in Unreal Tournament.
I was playing thousands of hours worth of video games well into my late twenties, but eventually I decided that I wanted to put my energy and attention into things which could show a return on investment, so to speak. Stopping took a powerful act of will, and it was cold turkey. It failed several times before I got it right. --And to be honest, it wasn't even will power so much as I started to get violently ill, (vomiting), if I played a game for more than an hour or so. When your body is telling you to quit, it's a good idea to listen.
But it was all part and parcel with my decision to grow my awareness and light and to walk away from many of the control measures placed upon people. Soul-work is important stuff, and it's why we came here. Video games are useful to a degree insofar as they are a part of this reality for us to explore, but they can easily evolve into a distraction from more powerful lessons.
-FL
I don't know why everyone here is complaining about the 20 minute length, saying the kids should have played for an hour or more. Remember, these are elementary school children, not adults. Most of them don't have the attention span required to do one thing for a long period of time. If you require them to sit and play after they've had enough of the game, you're likely to have the child express frustration and have a frantic release of energy when you observe them afterward. This doesn't help you measure the effects of the game itself.
If games affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching on pills and listening to repetative electroinic music. Oh, wait...
I learned this 15 years ago when I turned my then-four-year-old son loose on an early copy of Wolfenstein 3D.
After a long session of him gleefully shooting everything that moved (In god mode, of course), I decided to test the idea that violent games produced violent children. "Wouldn't it be nice if you could shoot people like that in real life?" I asked.
He looked at me, utterly shocked. "No! Why would I want to do that?"
"You enjoyed shooting people in Wolfenstein, didn't you?" I offered, "Why not for real?"
I swear, my 4 year old son looked at me with pity in his eyes. "It's only a game , Dad!
After that I decided not to worry about kids playing violent video games any more. They are a lot more aware than most folks realize... and a lot smarter than most anti-games crusaders!
Children are immune, in the new study, apparently to any influence at all. Music, even a love of music, cannot be transferred. An appreciation of higher thought, long thought teachable, "might as well be water on a duck's back," said one researcher.
No matter what we offer up, even repeatedly, the answer is always the same. They curl their lip, roll their eyes and say "DUH!" and "No Shit. Enough already."
We tried teaching spanish to no avail, math no way. We think this why all children all around the world are the same. Culture is apparently an illusion that we're just going to have to give up."
I've been playing violent video games for years.
They don't cause violence.
And I'll kill any man who says otherwise!
For castles made of sand must eventually return to the sea.
...a study showing real world violence is sometimes prevented by videogames?
Why not? I could see situations where someone is fustrated by real world situations and needs a channel to vent. Why not let 'em go all out ballistic on a virtual proxies and get it out of their system in an acceptable manner? Sure beats letting 'em keep it bottled up, snapping, and going crazy on some unfortunate who wanders by in real life.
I know that most of the population that reads this site loves video games as much as i do but the study only looked at children who played these games for 20 minutes. This is hardly a factor in noting any psychological change. A kid who is in karate class for 20 minutes doesn't want to kick anybody he sees. This study is a half ass excuse for these "professors" to say they accomplished a meaningful addition to mainstream knowledge.
The study monitored the behavior of children from 10 schools in eastern and southern metropolitan Melbourne
Admittedly based on no hard evidence, just hunches I get from experience and news sources, my guess is that the population areas most prone to crime and violence probably cluster around the West and North Melbourne metro areas, with East being the least prone and South having some limited problem areas. Although by world standards Melbourne is a pretty safe place.